Read on Twitter
It would be helpful if the govt was clear - with the public and internally - what precisely it is hoping to achieve with lockdown 2.0.
These are difficult conversations - but not having them is just kicking the can down the road... https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1323193400909303808
These are difficult conversations - but not having them is just kicking the can down the road... https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1323193400909303808
Are you trying to 'save the NHS' like the first time? Or get numbers down to a level contact tracers can manage? Or minimise deaths? These all point to lockdowns of different durations - and different conversations to be had with the public and parliament.
Anyone who lived through the Melbourne lockdown will tell you that if you're trying to get cases to a level where contact tracers can get a grip on them, don't expect it to be over in a month. The govt owes it to the public to be honest with them about what to expect.
But honesty with the public requires internal clarity about what you're trying to achieve. It was clear for the first lockdown (save the NHS) but is it this time? Has been elusive for many aspects of the response as I point out for @instituteforgov here: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/early-pandemic-response-lessons
Obviously this is difficult when there's internal division. But this would not be the first time the government has sought short term relief in a way that hurts it in the longer term: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/government-moonshot-back-to-earth
